[UA] Re: [UA]

[Nick Wedig]

>Hmm, if you fail with a 45... no, I wouldn't say that allows you any
>success at all, rather it should be some gauge of how annoying your
>failure's going to be.  If it's less than double your skill you just fail,
>but if you failed your computers roll on a 60 or higher (with the base at
>30) then someone noticed.
>
>Rather I would say the time thing would kick in on very narrow successes.

Well, the idea was for things which will get done eventually, not simple 'yes/no' operations.  Consider running a race.  If I roll my athletics successfully, then I get done really quickly.  But even if I fail the roll, I'll still make it around the track eventually (unless I roll very badly - matched failure or BOHICA - and collapse).  So using the failed roll as a gauge requires less rerolling than additional rolls.  I'm uncertain whether computer hacking is a valid example.

And I still think higher should be better, as with everywhere else, something you seem to ignore as well.

Mr. Teapot
likes the 'higher is good, but too high is bad' deal

____________________________________________________
FREE Disinformation E-book - http://www.disinfo.com

_______________________________________________
UA mailing list
UA at lists.uchicago.edu
http://lists.uchicago.edu/mailman/listinfo/ua